Magnetic core insulation

ABSTRACT

Disclosed herein is an insulating material between adjacent metal layers of a soft magnetic core, and a process for forming this insulating material. The insulating material is composed of the native metal oxides of the metallic core material.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0001] This application is a division of U.S. application Ser. No.09/575,090, filed May 19, 2000, which is a continuation-in-part ofapplication Ser. No. 09/315,549, filed May 20, 1999, and also claimspriority to provisional patent application serial No. 60/141,209, filedJun. 25, 1999, the entirety of each of which are incorporated herein byreference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0002] The present invention generally relates to a method of providinginsulation between adjacent metal layers of a magnetic core and to softmagnetic cores produced by this method. In particular, the presentinvention relates to the formation and use of native metal oxidesbetween adjacent metallic magnetic core layers as insulation between thelayers to restrict electrical current flow. Advantageously, the methodof the present invention can also be used to tailor the magneticproperties of cores formed using the invention.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0003] Magnetic materials come in at least two forms, hard or soft. Hardmagnetic materials are permanent magnets, which retain their magneticproperties after an energizing field is removed. An example of a hardmagnetic material is a common refrigerator magnet. In contrast, softmagnet materials have a magnetic field which collapses after theenergizing field is removed. Examples, of soft magnetic materialsinclude electromagnets. Soft magnetic materials are widely used inelectric circuits as parts of transformers, inductors, inverters, switchpower supplies, and other applications. Soft magnetic materials are alsoused to make magnetic cores that provide high-energy storage, fastenergy storage and efficient energy recovery. In these and otherapplications, magnetic cores may be used at a variety of differentoperational frequencies, typically ranging from 50 Hz to 20 kHz or more.

[0004] Most magnetic cores are made by winding a very thin magneticmetal strip or ribbon tightly around a substrate to form a multi-layeredlaminate. The wound metallic core is then subjected to a heating step,known as “annealing,” to optimize its performance through heat-inducedordering of the magnetic domains in the metal. After the annealing step,the substrate may be removed and the magnetic core may be treated withbinding agents to hold the adjacent metal layers together so that thecore will not unwind. As known to those of skill in the art, suchbinding agents may include epoxies, having either one or two parts, suchas Hysol #4242 resin and #3401 hardener (Olean, N.Y.), or #2076impregnation epoxy by Three Bond Co. Treatment with a binding agent alsopermits the core to be processed by cutting to form C or E cores, sonamed because the resulting cut cores resemble a C or an E, as known tothose of skill in the art.

[0005] The metal strips or ribbon layers making up a magnetic core arevery thin, typically from about 0.01 to 0.3 millimeters thick. For highfrequency applications of greater than 400 Hz, the individual metallayers of a wound magnetic core must also be electrically insulated fromone another for the core to function properly. Without such insulation,at high frequency the magnetic core has electrical properties similar toa large metal block, and will experience large power losses due to eddycurrents.

[0006] To provide insulation between layers, the prior art generallyteaches coating the metal ribbon with an insulating material prior towinding the ribbon to form the core. The insulating material istypically coated on both sides of the ribbon, and functions to insulatethe metal layers in the wound laminate from adjacent metal layers. Onewidely used coating method is described in U.S. Pat. No. 2,796,364 toSuchoff, which discloses a method of forming a layer of magnesium oxideon a metal ribbon surface as an insulating layer. As described inSuchoff, magnesium methylate is dissolved in an organic solvent, and thesolution is applied to the metal ribbon surface. The metal ribbon isthen heated to high temperature to form a strongly adherent magnesiumoxide insulating film over the surface of the metal ribbon. The metalribbon may then be wound to form the magnetic core.

[0007] There are several known disadvantages to the magnesium methylateprocess. First, the magnesium methylate must be applied to the metalribbon before it may be wound into a core. Uncoiling the metal ribbon,dipping the ribbon into a bath to form the coat, heating and curing thecoat, and winding the ribbon to form the core make the process slow andexpensive. The magnesium methylate process is therefore not suitable toprovide insulation to magnetic cores in low cost, high volumeapplications. Second, it is very difficult to control the thickness ofthe resulting magnesium oxide insulating layer. This presents a problemfor certain magnetic core applications, such as pulse cores, which havehigh performance specifications that are difficult to achieve unless thecoated magnesium methylate layer is very thin. Forming thin magnesiummethylate coatings requires special processing that is very slow anddifficult to control. Use of the magnesium methylate process for theseapplications is extremely expensive, and the resulting cores arefragile. Furthermore, even for applications where a thicker insulatinglayer is acceptable, valuable magnetic core space is taken up whenexcessive nonconductive insulating material is present. This reduces thespace factor of the laminated stack so that the percentage of the coreoccupied by magnetic material is lessened along with the efficiency ofthe core. Finally, because the magnesium methylate must be coated beforethe annealing step, it may also interfere with the ordering of magneticdomains during annealing by inducing stress buildup between the coatingand the soft magnetic material.

[0008] The magnesium methylate process also cannot be used to forminsulating layers for certain types of magnetic cores. High temperaturesare required to properly cure the magnesium methylate on the metalribbon. Typically, the magnesium methylate coating must be heated totemperatures of at least 843° C. (1550° F.) or more to form a magnesiumoxide film which firmly adheres to the metal ribbon. However, some softmagnetic materials, such as amorphous metal alloys, may not be heated totemperatures greater than about 449° C. (840° F.) without destroyingtheir desirable magnetic properties. When magnesium methylate is used asan insulating material for these types of metal alloys, it is heated tomuch lower temperatures, and the resulting magnesium oxide layer is onlyloosely bound to the metal ribbon. As a result, these types of cores maynot be cut to form C or E cores, because the stressful cutting operationwill cause the loosely bound insulating coatings to delaminate. Onlyuncut cores such as toroids can be formed from amorphous metal alloyscoated with the magnesium methylate process. Moreover, the presentinventors know of only one other process which may be used to form C orE magnetic cores of amorphous metal alloys. That process involvesforming a thin discontinuous magnesium oxide coating on the ribbon priorto winding, and because the coating is not continuous, results in coreshaving high power dissipation at high frequency.

[0009] Thus, there is a need for improved methods of forming thindielectric insulation on soft magnetic metal ribbons used to makemagnetic cores. There is also a need for an insulation which permitsprocessing of amorphous metal cores to form C and E cores that can beused at high frequencies.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0010] The present invention advantageously overcomes the shortcomingsof the prior art by providing a process to form insulating layersbetween adjacent metal layers of a magnetic core after the core has beenwound. The process may be used to provide insulation to a wide varietyof metals and metal alloys used to make magnetic cores, includingamorphous metal alloys. The insulating material formed by the process ofthe present invention is firmly bound to the surface of the metal ribbonforming the core, and cores incorporating the insulating material may becut to form C or E cores, or other cut cores known to those of skill inthe art. Consequently, for the first time, C and E cores can be madewhich are formed of amorphous metal alloys which are protected bycontinuous insulating films and suitable for high frequencyapplications.

[0011] In one aspect of the present invention, there is a method ofproviding dielectric isolation between adjacent metal layers of alaminated magnetic assembly. The method comprises a first step ofoxidizing a laminated magnetic assembly, where the assembly is aplurality of layers which are formed in part of iron. The oxidationproduces a coating comprising a mixture of iron oxides. The resultingmagnetic assembly has a resistivity of greater than about 500 ohm-cm.The oxidizing step may comprise exposing the plurality of layers tosteam in the presence of oxygen at a temperature of at least 260° C.(500° F.). Preferably, the layers may be heated to a temperature of fromabout 260° C. to 427° C. (500° F. to 800° F.). When the layers are anamorphous metal alloy, it is preferred that the layers are heated tobetween about 354° C. to 427° C. (670° F. to 800° F.) and where squareloop cores are desired, preferably from about 354° C. to about 379° C.(670° F. to 715° F.). In preferred embodiments of the method, theoxidized laminated magnetic assembly exhibits at least a 15% decrease ispower loss at operational frequencies of 10 to 20 kHz in comparison tothe magnetic assembly prior to exposure to steam and air.

[0012] In another aspect of the present invention, there is a method ofmaking a dielectrically insulated soft magnetic assembly. The methodcomprises a first step of winding an amorphous metal alloy ribboncontaining iron into a multi-layered core. Then, the core is heated inthe presence of water and oxygen to oxidize the iron of amorphous metalalloy ribbon to form a coating comprising oxides of iron. The coating isat least about 0.03 microns thick.

[0013] In another aspect of the present invention, there is provided asoft magnetic assembly comprising an elongate amorphous metal strip. Thestrip is at least about 40% iron. The strip has a first side and asecond side. The first side has small protrusions and the second side issubstantially smooth. The strip is wound to form a laminate such thatthe protrusions on the first side contact the smooth second surface. Acoating comprising oxides of iron substantially covers the smooth secondsurface and at least a portion of the protrusions which contact thesmooth second surface. The coating preferably has a thickness of 0.03microns or more. In some embodiments, greater than 75% of the coatingcomprises iron (III) oxide and iron (IV) oxide (i.e., Fe₂O₃—FeO, alsoknown as magnetite and iron (II-III) oxide). It is also preferred thatthe coated soft magnetic assembly have a resistivity of greater than 500ohm-cm, more preferably greater than 1000 ohm-cm, and most preferablygreater than 10000 ohm-cm.

[0014] In another aspect of the present invention, there is provided adielectric insulating coating between contact points of adjacent metallayers of a soft magnetic assembly. The coating comprising primarilyiron (III) oxide in sufficient amount to reduce power losses in theassembly by at least 15%. Preferably, the dielectric insulating coatingis present in sufficient amount to reduce power losses in the assemblyby at least 30%, and more preferably by at least 45%.

[0015] In another aspect of the present invention, there is provided asoft magnetic assembly with an insulative coating material betweenadjacent metal layers of the assembly, the coating consistingessentially of oxides of iron, the assembly having a resistivity of atleast 1000 ohm-cm.

[0016] In another aspect of the present invention, there is a method offorming an insulative coating on the surface of an amorphous metal alloystrip. The method comprises providing an amorphous metal alloy strip inwhich the percentage of iron exceeds the percentage of any other elementpresent in the alloy. Then, the strip is heated to a temperature atwhich the alloy anneals. The strip is then exposed to steam in thepresence of oxygen to form a coating of oxides of iron over asubstantial portion of the strip. Optionally, the strip may be woundinto a core prior to heating the strip to the annealing temperature.

[0017] In another aspect of the present invention, there is provided amagnetic C core. The core has a plurality of amorphous metal alloystrips forming a laminate which are semicircular, semi-oval orsemi-rectangular in shape. A metal oxide insulating coating is betweenadjacent strips within the laminate. The oxide is formed from theoxidation of iron. The insulative coating reduces power losses in thecore by at least 15% when the core is used at operational frequencies of10 kHz or more.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0018]FIG. 1 is a schematic perspective view of a toroidal magneticcore.

[0019]FIG. 2 is a schematic cross sectional view of the magnetic core ofFIG. 1.

[0020]FIG. 3 is a schematic cross sectional diagram of an amorphousmetal strip which has been wound to form a laminate, prior to formationof the insulating material of the present invention.

[0021]FIG. 4 is a schematic cross sectional diagram of an amorphousmetal laminate of FIG. 3 featuring the metal oxide insulating materialof the present invention.

[0022]FIG. 5 is a comparative graph of the improved performance ofcoatings applied using steam generated from feedwater with a basic pH.

[0023]FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram of the pulse tester apparatus usedto perform the toroid pulse testing.

[0024]FIG. 7 is a plot of a pore spectrum for an aluminum silicatematrix suitable for providing a transference matrix for ferric oxide.

[0025]FIG. 8 is an adsorption/desorption isotherm for an aluminumsilicate matrix suitable for providing a transference matrix for ferricoxide.

[0026]FIG. 9 is a plot of core flux versus drive level for uncoatedimpregnated cores.

[0027]FIG. 10 is a plot of permeability versus power dissipation (inwatts/pound) for uncoated impregnated cores.

[0028]FIG. 11 is a plot of core flux versus drive level for coatedimpregnated cores.

[0029]FIG. 12 is a plot of permeability versus power dissipation (inwatts/pound) for coated impregnated cores.

[0030]FIG. 13 is a plot of permeability versus annealing temperature foruncoated cores.

[0031]FIG. 14 is a plot of permeability versus annealing temperature forcoated cores.

[0032]FIG. 15 is a plot of core flux versus drive level for 0.1 poundcores treated at 690° F. and 725° F. under round loop conditions.

[0033]FIG. 16 is a plot of core flux versus drive level for uncoatedunimpregnated cores.

[0034]FIG. 17 is a plot of permeability versus power dissipation (inwatts/pound) for uncoated unimpregnated cores.

[0035]FIG. 18 is a plot of core flux versus drive level for coatedunimpregnated cores.

[0036]FIG. 19 is a plot of permeability versus power dissipation (inwatts/pound) for coated unimpregnated cores.

[0037]FIG. 20 is a plot of apparent permeability versus inductor gap incentimeters for regression analysis of the data of Table 12.

[0038]FIG. 21 and FIG. 22 are data plots of power loss improvementsprovided by the coating of the present invention at temperature rangesfrom about 680° F. to 800° F.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

[0039] The present invention generally relates to native metal oxideinsulating compositions which may be formed on magnetic cores after thecores have been wound. Although described below in the context of awound toroidal magnetic core, it should be readily appreciated by thoseof skill in the art that the teachings of the present invention can beapplied to magnetic cores having a variety of shapes and dimensions. Forexample, the present invention may be readily applied as part of aprocess to form C magnetic cores, E magnetic cores, and other laminatedmagnetic assemblies known to those of skill in the art. Furthermore, theinvention can be applied to magnetic assemblies which comprise laminateswhich have not been wound, as for example, forming a magnetic laminateassembly by stacking successive layers.

[0040] Referring to FIG. 1, there is depicted a schematic of a woundtoroidal magnetic core 10 incorporating the present invention. Magneticcore 10 is formed by winding a thin metal strip or ribbon 20 around amandrel 30 to form a laminate. Mandrel 30 is merely a hard solidsubstrate around which the ribbon is wound, such as an elongated metalbar or rod. Mandrel 30 is removed in subsequent core processing, and isnot part of the final magnetic core 10. Mandrel 30 may have varioussizes and shapes such as round, rectangular, square, etc., which can beselected to form cores having differing shapes and dimensions. Metalribbon 20 is wrapped around mandrel 30 a sufficient number of turns toform a multi-layered laminate of the desired aggregate thickness. Forpurposes of the present invention, ribbon 20 may be wound to form coressimilar in size, dimension and weight to those now commerciallyavailable. After winding is complete, the wound core 10 may be annealedto optimize its performance, as known to those of skill in the art.

[0041] Metal ribbon 20 is a soft magnetic metal or alloy having iron asthe dominant metal. Metal ribbon 20 is preferably thin, and may rangefrom about 0.01 millimeters to 0.3 millimeters in thickness. Metalribbon 20 may also vary in width from about 0.1 cm to about 25 cm. Tominimize power losses at high frequencies, an insulating material 40 isprovided between adjacent layers of metal ribbon 20. As shownschematically in FIG. 2, core 10 has a coating of insulating material 40between layers of metal ribbon 20. Insulating material 40 is formed atleast on some of those portions of the layers of metal ribbon 20 whichcontact adjacent metal layers, and therefore restricts electricalcurrent flow between adjacent metal layers. In some embodiments, metalribbon 20 may be an amorphous metal alloy, preferably iron basedtransition metal based metalloids, having the formula TM-M, where TM isat least 80% Fe, Co or Ni, or mixtures thereof, with the remaining 20%comprising M, where M is selected from the group comprising B, C, Si, Por Al, or mixtures thereof. In other embodiments, metal ribbon 20 may bea nanocrystalling material.

[0042] Advantageously, the present invention provides a unique processwhich can be used to form insulating material 40 between adjacent metallayers of ribbon 20 after ribbon 20 has been wound into core 10. Thus,the time consuming and expensive coating processes of the prior art maybe avoided. Furthermore, the unique insulating material 40 of thepresent invention is thin and is firmly adhered to ribbon 20. Thus, wheninsulating material 40 is formed on a magnetic core made of an amorphousmetal alloy, the core may be cut to form soft magnetic assembliespreviously unavailable, such as C and E cores of amorphous metal alloys.

[0043] Generally, insulating material 40 is formed by oxidizing metalribbon 20 to form native metal oxides of the metals or alloy metals as avery thin coat overlying the surface of metal ribbon 20. The nativemetal oxides of most metals used to form cores have relatively highresistivities and are particularly suited to function as insulationbetween adjacent metal layers. Because most metals and metals in alloyswhich may form ribbon 20 may be oxidized to form a metal oxide havingsufficient electrical resistance to form an adequate insulating material40, the present invention is widely applicable to soft magnetic corematerials used today. Table 1 sets forth representative examples ofmetals and metal alloys which may be used in the present invention, andthe corresponding chemical composition of some of the insulatingmaterials which may be created by oxidation of the metals or alloys.TABLE 1 Partial listing of soft magnetic metals Elemental ApproximateAlloy Native Metal Oxide Metals Composition Trade Name InsulatingMaterials Fe, Ni 40% Fe, 38% Ni, METGLAS ® FeO, Fe₂O₃, Fe₃O₄ 18% B, 4%Mo Alloy 2826MB Fe, B 81% Fe, 13.5% B, METGLAS ® FeO, Fe₂O₃, Fe₃O₄ 3%Si, 2% C Alloy 2605SC Fe, Co, Ni T (70-80%), Amorphous and FeO, Fe₂O₃,Fe₃O₄ M (30-20%) Nanocrystalline Fe, B 70% Fe, 9% B, 3% Nb,Nanocrystalline FeO, Fe₂O₃, Fe₃O₄ 2% Cu, Mo, Co, Si Fe, Co 67% Fe, 18%Co, METGLAS ® FeO, Fe₂O₃, Fe₃O₄ 14% B, 1% Si Alloy 2605CO Fe, Co 49% Fe,49% Co, 2% V SUPERMENDUR ® FeO, Fe₂O₃, Fe₃O₄

[0044] Where iron is the dominant metal in the alloy, as for example inMETGLAS® Alloy 2605SA1, the insulative material is formed primarily ofiron (III) oxide (Fe₂O₃), with the remainder being mostly iron (II-III)oxide. For example, for one core treated with steam and air at 690° F.for 6 hours, Raman spectroscopy revealed that the insulating layer wascomposed of approximately about 80% to 90% Fe₂O₃ and 10% to 15% Fe₃O₄(i.e., iron (II-III) oxide) with small amounts of FeO. The layer had athickness of 0.15 microns of this iron oxide mixture.

[0045] It should be appreciated by those of skill in the art that therepresentative alloys and metals set forth above are meant asillustrative examples, and the teachings of the present invention areapplicable to iron dominant alloy compositions other than thosedescribed above. For example, the present invention can easily beapplied to alloys which merely alter the compositional percentages, oralloys which introduce new metals or elements without affecting theability of the iron-dominant alloy to be oxidized to form insulatingiron oxides.

[0046] Insulating material 40 should be formed thick enough and havesufficient resistance to effectively insulate successive layers of metalribbon 20 from electrical current flow between the layers. If theinsulating metal 40 is formed too thick, however, the resulting magneticcore 10 will contain excessive nonconductive insulating material, andthe magnetic core 10 will have a low space factor, i.e., the percentageof the magnetic core 10 occupied by magnetic material is low, reducingthe efficiency of the core. Preferably, insulating material 40 is formedto have a thickness of between 0.01 and 5 microns, more preferablybetween 0.03 and 2 microns, and optimally between 0.03 microns and 0.5microns. Of course, as should be appreciated by those of skill in theart, other thicknesses of insulating material 40 may be provided byvarying the processing conditions described below. For example, whereinsulating material 40 is formed primarily of a metal oxide having arelatively high resistivity, thinner layers may be used to increase thespace factor and core efficiency. Furthermore, for some applications,greater amounts of insulating material 40 may be desired betweenadjacent metal layers, such as for very high frequency and pulse powerapplications. Preferably, the insulating layer 40 is thin enough so thatthe resulting core has a space factor of at least 70%, more preferably80%, and optimally 85% or more.

[0047] The electrical resistance of the laminate incorporating thepresent invention is a function of the resistivity of the metal oxidemultiplied by the form factor of insulating material 40, combined withthe marginal resistance created by the metal material of core 10. Formost applications, it is preferred that core 10 have an effectiveresistivity of a 500 Ω-cm and more preferably at least 1000 Ω-cm andoptimally at least 10000 Ω-cm. Of course, as should be appreciated bythose of skill in the art, the present invention can easily be adaptedto create insulating material 40 having laminate resistivities greateror less than the described values, by varying the processing conditionsdescribed below. Magnetic laminates formed using the present inventioncan support from at least about 2 to 10 volts per layer of lamination.

[0048] In general terms, insulating material 40 is formed by controlledoxidation of the iron in metal ribbon 20. The presently preferred methodof oxidation is to expose magnetic core 10 to steam in the presence ofair (approximately 20% O₂) at elevated temperatures. The steam and airdiffuse into wound core 10 and contact the surfaces of the heated layersof ribbon 20, resulting in accelerated oxidation of the surface of metalribbon 20 to form a thin metal oxide coat or layer on the surface ofmetal ribbon 20. The steam and heat accelerate the electron transferrate during some or all of the reactions from the metals of the ribbonalloy to oxygen, to form the iron oxides. The processing conditions canalso be varied to further accelerate the electron transfer rate duringsome or all of the reactions, such as introducing various catalysts, asdescribed more fully below, or temperature increases to decrease steamparticle size.

[0049] Furthermore, as will be appreciated by those of skill in the art,different processing conditions which accelerate electron transfersbetween the metals and oxygen to form native metal oxides may besubstituted for or supplement the steam/air combination. These alternateprocessing conditions may include exposing the laminated assembly tohigh concentrations of highly reactive oxidizing molecules such asozone, nitrous oxide, and other highly reactive oxides of nitrogen. Itis expected that if these highly reactive molecules are introduced incontrolled manner in conjunction with the process described herein,reaction rates will be accelerated to form the insulating metal oxides.

[0050] Furthermore, for some applications, it may be desirable to formmetal sulfides as the insulating material. To achieve this, hydrogensulfide (H₂S) may be substituted for water in steam, to form nativemetal sulfides as the insulating layer of the present invention. Otheranalogues to oxygen and sulfur, such as selenium, might also be used aselectron acceptors to form insulating compounds between adjacent metallayers.

[0051] As can be readily appreciated, changes in the processingconditions or materials which facilitate complete and fast penetrationof steam and air between all layers of heated laminated assembly such ascore 10 will result in faster processing times and more uniform coats orlayers of insulating material 40 on ribbon 20. The present inventorshave found that the surface morphology of ribbon 20 can be selected tooptimize diffusion or penetration of steam and air between layers.Referring to FIG. 3, there is shown a magnified view of a crosssectional portion of a wound core 100 formed of a soft magneticmaterial. Core 100 may be formed of any of the metals or alloysdisclosed in Table 1, above, and variations thereof. Core 100 hasmultiple layers of metal ribbon 120, four of which, 120 a through 120 d,are depicted in FIG. 3. The adjacent metal layers 120 a through 120 dare not provided with an insulating material between them, and thereforereadily conduct electric current flow at their points of contact. Asshown in FIG. 3, ribbon 120 has a relatively smooth surface 121 and arougher surface 122. Rougher surface 122 is characterized by protrusionsor pips 150, which rise from the surface by a small distance incomparison to the thickness of layers 120 a through 120 d at scatteredpoints on the surface of the metal ribbon 120. When ribbon 120 is woundto form a laminate, as depicted in FIG. 3, pips 150 contact the smoothsurface 121 and thereby establish an electrical current flow pathbetween adjacent metal layers 120 a through 120 d. A very small gap 130is created between adjacent metal layers, defined approximately by thedistance pips 150 rise from the surface. Advantageously, gap 130provides a path which facilitates penetration of steam and air into theinterior of wound core 100 during the process of the present invention.

[0052] Metal ribbons having the gaps and pips described above arecommercially available as, for example, the amorphous metal alloys soldby Honeywell (formerly sold by Allied Signal Corporation) under thetrade name METGLAS®. For the METGLAS® ribbons, the differing surfacemorphologies of metal ribbon 120 are an artifact of the processingconditions used to create metal ribbon 120. The METGLAS® ribbons areformed by spraying molten metal alloys onto the surface of a rotatingdrum cooled with liquid chilling. The molten metal is cooled at a rateof about 100000 degrees centigrade per second or faster. The alloyssolidify before the atoms have a chance to segregate or crystallize. Theresulting solid metal alloy has an amorphous glass-like atomicstructure. The surface of the solid ribbon which contacted the drum isrougher because the rough drum surface introduces minor imperfections,which create pips 150.

[0053] Referring to FIG. 4, there is shown a schematic cross sectionaldiagram of the laminate of FIG. 3 which has been provided withinsulating material 140 of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 4, ametal oxide material comprising insulating material 140 has been formedbetween adjacent layers 120 a through 120 d. Insulating material 140 isformed both on the relatively smooth surface 121 and on the roughersurface 122, and particularly covers pips 150. Insulating material 140is positioned between metal contact points of adjacent metal layers 120a through 120 d, and the electrical current paths previously present aresubstantially disrupted. As a result, the laminate is much moreresistive to electrical current flow.

[0054] The presently preferred processing conditions to oxidize themetal to form the metal oxide insulating material are dependent on thecore metals, and also on the desired magnetic properties. For example,when an amorphous metal alloy of Fe/Si/C/B is being processed, it ispreferred to heat the magnetic core to a temperature of from about 260°C. to 427° C. (500° F. to 800° F.). Where amorphous metal cores havingsquare loop properties are desired, heating is preferably between about354° C. to 379° C. (670° F. to 715° F.), more preferably 354° C. to 365°C. (670° F. to 690° F.), in combination with application of applicationof a longitudinal magnetic field. Where flat loop properties aredesired, heating is preferably at a temperature greater than about 399°C. (750° F.) up to about 416° C. (780° F.). Where round loop propertiesare preferred, heating is preferably at a temperature between about 377°C. and 388° C. (710° F. to 730° F.).

[0055] For amorphous metal alloys, good results have been achieved byheating the core to its annealing temperature, and simultaneouslyforming the metal oxide coating while annealing. For most amorphousmetal alloys, the annealing temperature is between 354° C. to 365° C.(670° F. to 690° F.), although several such alloys may have annealingtemperatures outside of this range. The annealing conditions for themetal ribbon alloys used to make magnetic cores are well known to thoseof skill in the art. For example, the annealing conditions for amorphousmetal alloys sold under the trademark METGLAS® are reported in AlliedSignal's and Honeywell's Advanced Materials Technical Bulletins.

[0056] It has been observed that the process of forming the insulatingmaterial is more efficient if the wound magnetic core is treated in acirculating oven. One oven suitable for this treatment is made by Blue Mof Blue Island, Ill., and sold as model AGC7-1406G. Circulation of theair/steam mixture in the oven is believed to keep the temperature equalthroughout the oven, and to bring air into the oven which contributes tothe oxidation reaction. After the process is completed, the oven iscooled.

[0057] The core should be exposed to steam for a period of timesufficient to form an adequate layer of insulating material 40 for theintended core application. It has been observed that time periods offrom 0.5 to 12 hours or longer may be used. Good results have beenobserved when the exposure time is 1 to 6 hours, more preferably 2 to 6hours, and optimally 4 to 6 hours. The steam pressure should besufficient to cause good penetration of the steam into the laminateassemblies. It has been found that steam pressures of about 0.1 to 2.5psi, more preferably 1 to 2 psi, are sufficient for this purpose.However, other steam pressures may be used, as will be readilyappreciated by those of skill in the art. For example, it iscontemplated that steam pressures ranging from 0.1 to 100 psi or moremay be used. Moreover, the flow of steam introduced in the oven must besufficient to permit the coating to form. Preferably, the flow is atleast 0.22 gal/hour per cubic foot of oven space, more preferably atleast 0.25 gal/hour per cubic foot, and optimally at least 0.26 gal/hourper cubic foot. Flow restrictors which may be used to control the flowof steam into the oven include circular hole plugs having diametersranging from {fraction (1/16)} inch to ⅝ inch.

[0058] Enhanced growth and thickness of the coating on the metal ribbonis observed when the steam is infused with [Fe_(x)O_(y)]^(+z) cations,where x, y, z factors in this chemical formula are: 1≦x≦2, 1≦y≦3, 1≦z≦3.The ferric part of the [Fe_(x)O_(y)]^(+z) cation is believed very activein facilitating oxidation on the mostly iron surface of METGLAS® 2605SA1and other iron rich amorphous alloys and other metals that may be usedin the invention. The ferric cations initiate the necessaryelectrochemical reactions due to oxidizing state considerations, andcouple easily to steam with ionic bonding. It is also possible that someof the Fe₂O₃ dissolved in the steam is entrained in the growing ironoxide on the surface of the coated metal, thereby augmenting itsthickness and insulative properties.

[0059] Suitable sources of ferric cations may be as simple as ferricoxide residues in an iron boiler used to generate the steam. A morepreferred source is to pack the [Fe_(x)O_(y)]^(+z) cations into atransference matrix having a known concentration of ferric cations,which is placed into the path of the steam. Use of such a transfermatrix improves consistency in the coating process, resulting in coreswhich are more uniform in magnetic performance for both amorphous metalalloys and nanocrystalline materials. It is preferred that the matrixonto which Fe₂O₃ (the source of the [Fe_(x)O_(y)]^(+z) cation) ispackaged, i.e., adsorbed, has a very high surface area as well assurface properties which facilitate the release of [Fe_(x)O_(y)]^(+z)cation and possibly Fe₂O₃ molecules into steam. The matrix should have ahigh surface area, distributed in a multi-modal pore distribution,combined with strong desorption properties. The present inventors havefound that a suitable matrix may be formed by soaking aluminum silicatein a dilute ferric chloride solution (that has been clairified withHCl), and then reducing the mixture with NH₄OH and heat to adsorb theferric oxide which is produced. A matrix having 10% w/w of iron shouldsupply sufficient ferric oxide cations. Such a matrix is manufacturedcommercially by Amorphico, Hesperia Calif. The reduction in power lossfor magnetic cores made from the present inventive process using aferric aluminum silicate matrix was typically no less than 30%, rangingup to 50% for METGLAS® 2606SA1 in comparison to cores not exposed toferric oxide cations from an aluminum silicate matrix, and had improvedconsistency compared to performance from boiler chips or hard water.

[0060] Referring to FIG. 7 and FIG. 8, there is shown the pore spectrumand adsorption/desorption isotherms of a suitable aluminum silicate thatmay be used as the matrix for Fe₂O₃. FIG. 7 portrays a material withboth a high internal pore surface area (over 200 meters² per gram) and abroad pore size distribution from 20 to 1000 angstroms. FIG. 8 portraysa nearly ideal isotherm for slow release of the [Fe_(x)O_(y)]^(+z)cations into impinging steam over practical time intervals for manysuccessive batch coating runs. In short, the aluminum silicate makes anacceptable time release matrix for the [Fe_(x)O_(y)]^(+z) cations.

[0061] The aluminum silicate, characterized by FIG. 7 and FIG. 8, showsthat the combination of high surface area and close to ideal desorptionproperties creates a matrix which releases effective concentrations of[Fe_(x)O_(y)]^(+z) cations and Fe₂O₃ molecules into a low pressure steamsource. The “doped” steam in turn transports the [Fe_(x)O_(y)]^(+z)cations and Fe₂O₃ molecules between the laminations of impinging stripcores. The deposited Fe₂O₃ and ferric ion cations enhance the oxidationof iron in the metal alloys, thereby resulting in effective insulativecoatings. Approximately 20 in³ of the ferric aluminum silicate matrixhas a useful life of at least 20 to 40 four hour production runs, i.e.,4 to 8 hours per cubic inch of ferric aluminum silicate matrix. Thematrix may supply 150 to 200 ppm feric oxide/ferric oxide cations to thesteam entering the chamber and produce acceptable coatings.

[0062] The performance data of cores formed using a ferric aluminumsilicate matrix of the type characterized in FIG. 7 and FIG. 8, is shownin Table 2 below. The data shown in Table 2 and FIG. 9 was created usinga 5 to 10 psi source of steam with a 0.125″ diameter orifice andcanister having a volume of 20 cubic inches containing the ferricaluminum silicate matrix between the steam source and coating chamberoven. The steam pressure in the coating chamber oven was typically from0.5 to 2 psi, and coatings were generated by exposing to steam for 4hours at 690° F. to 700° F. TABLE 2 Core weight versus power loss for 6months METGLAS ® 2605SA1 production Core Loss Low Weight (lbs) Limit(W/lb)* Median (W/lb)* High Limit (W/lb)* 0.05 9.8 11.9 14.0 0.08 10.210.5 10.7 0.22 9.0 9.0 9.0 0.31 9.6 10.5 11.5 0.36 10.8 12.1 13.4 0.418.1 8.8 9.6 0.43 9.3 12.7 16.1 0.435 16.2 18.7 21.1 0.58 9.3 11.9 14.50.70 14.1 14.6 15.1 0.705 9.3 11.5 13.7 0.77 10.6 12.6 14.6 0.83 10.215.3 20.3 1.06 13.3 16.1 18.9 2.41 13.9 13.9 13.9 2.42 10.3 12.5 14.84.50 9.1 10.3 11.4 5.20 8.5 9.2 10.0 5.73 1.5 1.5 1.5 5.97 11.2 15.419.5 6.37 7.5 7.9 8.3 6.57 11.4 14.3 17.1 8.32 10.1 10.2 10.2 8.6 9.59.5 9.5

[0063] Preferably, the magnetic cores are annealed before or during theoxidative treatment which forms the insulating material on the surfaceof the metal ribbon. Annealing reduces the number of magneticdiscontinuities in the magnetic core and can give the magnetic coredesirable magnetic properties, as known to those of skill in the art.The presence of a full layer insulating metal oxide between core layerscould interfere with the annealing process by introducing stressbuildups. This is avoided by treating the cores to form the insulatingmaterial after the magnetic core has been wound and then during or afterannealing. Because the process of the present invention produces metaloxide insulating materials at temperatures at or below the annealingtemperature, this preferred sequence can be followed for most types ofcores.

[0064] One embodiment which has produced good results is to anneal anamorphous metal alloy core (containing iron as the dominant metal) inair at a temperature of about 365° C. (690° F.) in the presence of amagnetic field to align the magnetic domains in the core. The oventemperature is then reduced to 305° C. to 329° C. (580° F. to 625° F.)before exposing the core to steam to form the iron oxide insulatinglayer. Even though annealing is done in air at a higher temperature thanthe temperature at which the insulating layer is formed by the processof the present invention, there are insufficient metal oxides present onthe surfaces of the ribbon to provide dielectric insulation between thelayers.

[0065] Another embodiment producing particularly good results is totreat an amorphous metal alloy core, having iron as the dominant metal,with steam and air while the core is being annealed. In other words, theinsulating iron oxide coating formation and annealing take placesimultaneously. The annealing temperature of the amorphous metal alloywill dictate the precise temperature for the treatment, as describedabove.

[0066] The coatings of the present invention also achieve superiorperformance by introducing or relieving mechanical stress. As known tothose of skill in the art, power loss in soft magnetic cores has twocomponents. The first component are eddy currents, which arise fromvoltages introduced in the substrate layers by flux variation. Eddycurrent losses arc directly tied to the operational frequency of theinduction coil, and play a minor role at low operational frequencies of400 Hz or less, particularly for amorphous and nanocrystallinematerials.

[0067] The second component of power loss results from the hysteresiseffect, which is the amount of energy lost when the magnetic materialrepeats a magnetizing cycle. Stresses placed on a magnetic material canincrease hysteresis losses, by affecting the motion of magnetic domainsformed in the magnetic material. In particular, stress is mostunfavorable on the hystersis loop for materials with largemagnetostriction, such as amorphous metal alloys. The coatings of thepresent invention, when applied simultaneously with annealing of themetal ribbon, permits reduced stress on the underlying metal ribbons. Itis believed that softness of the iron oxides of the coating contributeto this effect. Because the coating moves easily at typical coreannealing temperatures, stresses are reduced on the metal ribbon becausethe coating acts as a lubricant relieving stresses on the metal ribbonduring annealing, which improve its performance. For example, at lowfrequency operating conditions, where eddy current losses areinsignificant, the simultaneously annealed and coated cores of thepresent invention exhibit improved performance in comparison to uncoatedcores. See Table 3, below. This improved performance would not beexpected simply from dielectric isolation of adjacent metal layers, andis attributable in part to stresses reduced on the metal ribbons whichreduce hysteresis losses. Furthermore, the effect which relaxes stresseson the underlying metal ribbon is visually confirmed by fracture linesin the coating observable by microscopy.

[0068] Furthermore, coatings of the present invention do not introduceundesirable compressive stresses on the magnetic core due to heatexpansion. It is known that the expansion coefficients of METGLAS®E2605SA1 and 2605SC are 7.6 and 5.9 ppm/° C., respectively. Commonconventional materials used as insulation, such as magnesium oxide andMYLAR®, have expansion coefficients of 8, and 40 to 90 ppm/° C.,respectively. Because the expansion coefficient of the insulationexceeds that of the metal, use of MgO or MYLAR® as insulation introducescompressive stresses in the operating temperature range. It is believedthat this stress increases power losses of the core by approximately afactor of two. The present coating, however, does not introducecompressive stresses that would otherwise occur, thereby substantiallyimproving performance.

[0069] Shown below in Table 3 is data comparing cores formed fromtreating METGLAS® 2605SA1 and 2605SC under conditions designed toeliminate stress. In particular, the coatings were formed by heating thewound cores to 670° F. to 690° F. for 4 hours, while simultaneouslyexposing the cores to steam at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.5 psi. The datafor these cores is compared to cores formed by the magnesium methylateprocess (MgO). The results are shown in Table 3 and demonstrate a lossreduction of 50% in both amorphous materials for coated cores 2 and 4 ascompared to standard magnesium methylate coatings of cores 1 and 3.TABLE 3 METGLASS ® 2605SA1 & 2605SC: 5.25″ OD × 4.0″ ID × 2″ SW #Material Processing Condition Core kW Start Amps Set Amps Pulse J/m³ 12605SA1, standard (MgO) 95.3 25 42 810 2 2605SA1, coated, zero stress57.7 10 20 490 ΔB = 2.8T, 2 μs 3 2605SC, standard (MgO) ΔB = 2.6T, 10225 40 867 2 μs 4 2605SC, coated, zero stress 61 10 20 518 ΔB = 3.05T, 2μs

[0070] Processing Enhancements to Alter Magnetic Properties

[0071] The processing temperature at which coating occurs can beadjusted to tailor the basic magnetic properties of the resulting cores.For amorphous metal alloys such as Metglas® 2605SA1, exposure to steamat temperatures from about 388° C. (730° F.) to 427° C. (800° F.) tendsto produce round and flat loop properties. Lower temperatures belowabout 379° C. (715° F.) tends to produce square loop properties, when alongitudinal magnetic field is applied during coating formation.Temperatures between about 379° C. and 388° C. (715° F. and 730° F.)tend to produce cores with round loop magnetic properties.

[0072] An example of a situation where flat loop properties are desiredis for toroids, where the application may call for a gap to limiteffective permeability. The gap however requires additional processingsteps, and typically results in fairly large power dissipation comparedto a toroid with no gap. Equivalent flat loop properties can besubstituted for a gap in many cases with lower resultant powerdissipation (because there is no gap) and potentially easiermanufacturability (because there is no need to cut a gap).

[0073] Although it is possible to produce flat hysteresis loops usingconventional processes and lower temperature annealing in the presenceof transverse magnetic fields, it is more difficult. The reason is thattransverse magnetic fields are perpendicular to the circumferentialdirection (in the direction of the strip width), requiring a specialmagnetic field generator. The magnetic field generator is typicallyeither a current carrying multiple turn solenoid, built from very heavygage wire wrapped on a tube or pot inside the oven, or is an electrifiedexternally placed large C core shaped electromagnet with a gap throughwhich a heated tunnel with properly oriented cores is routed. In thelatter case the oven must be specifically designed for transverse fieldannealing, and is typically limited to very specific core sizes. Thesolenoid pot is usually very limited in the number of parts which can betransverse and is susceptible to excessive process variation. However,when the present invention is used in combination with the properannealing temperature, formation of a flat hysteresis loop is mucheasier.

[0074] More specifically, when METGLAS® 2605SA1 is heated in thepresence of steam at a temperature of 715° F. for 4 hours or less usinglongitudinal magnetic fields to orient the domains, then normal squareloop properties always result. This has been verified in production forcores ranging from less than 1 pound to over 40 pounds. There is nosharp cutoff in the transition between the square, round and flat loopstates for temperatures approaching 715° F. to 730° F. and upward,because coating time and temperature interact in synergistic ways abovecritical activation temperatures. Coating times of 4 hours or greaterabove 730° F. in the presence of steam can result in flat loop coreswhen the cores are small, i.e., less than 1 pound. Other amorphousmetals, such as METGLAS® 2605SC, behave similarly, although the recitedtemperatures may differ slightly.

[0075] There are two technologically important classes of magneticamorphous alloys: the transition metal (TM)-metalloid (M) alloys and therare earth-transition metal alloys. METGLAS® 2605SA1 and its equivalentcommercial counterparts are transition metal-metalloid alloys, whichbroadly speaking contain approximately 80% atomic weight of one or moreof: Fe, Co or Ni with the remaining 20% being B, C, Si, P or Al. The#2605 alloy is 80% Fe and 20% B, which is apparently the grandparent formodem METGLAS® 2605XXX alloys. The metalloid components are necessary tolower the melting point so that the alloys can be rapidly quenchedthrough their glass transition temperature. The very same metalloidsalso stabilize the resultant quenched amorphous phase, and reduce thesaturation magnetization and glass transition temperature compared tocomparable crystalline alloys.

[0076] These alloys are of major interest because their presumedisotropic character has been shown to result in very low coercivity andhysteresis loss and high permeability, a combination which iscommercially very important for high frequency applications. Howevertheir weakness is tied to the metastable state, which can lead toeventual crystallization despite the presence of the metalloidstabilizers. Given this, a considerable amount of research has been tiedto TM-M amorphous alloy stability and crystallization time constants.This is because the end of life as far as magnetic applications areconcerned corresponds to the onset of crystallization. In thecrystallization temperature range the coercive force and power lossesincrease and the remanence and permeability decrease, all at a veryrapid rate for a small increase in temperature. This is one of thereasons the continuous service temperature for METGLAS® 2605SA1 is ratedat a fairly conservative 150° C. Likewise because of this effect it ispossible to tailor the permeability by annealing cores in thecrystallization temperature range for a controlled amount of time.

[0077] The stability of TM-M alloys has been found to correlate with thedifference between crystallization onset temperature and the glasstransition temperature. Between the melt temperature and glasstransition temperature, T_(g), crystallization increases rapidly asT_(g) is approached. On the other hand crystallization decreases rapidlyas the crystallization onset temperature falls below T_(g). Therefore,the glass transition temperature is an important parameter for thediscussion of crystallization onset time constants. T_(g) for #2605alloy is published to be 441° C. or 825.8° F. Honeywell does not publishT_(g) for METGLAS® 2605SA1 or for that matter for any of METGLAS®alloys. It does however publish the crystallization temperature for2605SA1 and other METGLAS® alloys, which for 2605SA1 is 945° F., whichis approximately 120° F. higher than the T_(g) for #2605 alloy. Assumingthat Honeywell's crystallization temperature is in fact T_(g), thepublished crystallization onset temperature of #2605 alloy for a givenannealing time is probably on the order of 120° F. lower than for the2605SA1 amorphous composition. The reason for this substantialdifference may be that 2605SA1 is significantly different from the #2605alloy chemically with possible additions of other elements.

[0078] Given this foundation and based on graphs shown in Chapter 6 ofWohfarth, “Ferro-Magnetic Materials,” Volume 1, (North HollandPublication), it appears that crystallization onset occurs after 2 to 5hours at 600° F. to 610° F. for #2605 alloy. It is therefore estimatedthat for 2 to 5 hours of annealing time, crystallization probably onsetsfor the 2605SA1 alloys above 690° F. in the 720° F. to 730° F. range,based on the comparison of permeability and power loss measurements at690° F. and 730° F. This observation is quite consistent with thedifferences between #2605 alloy's T_(g) and 2606SA1 alloy's publishedcrystallization temperature.

[0079] The data in the following tables and corresponding figures wereaccumulated by selecting two standard Honeywell part numbers to testboth standard and non-standard coating temperatures, keeping the coatingprocessing time a constant 4 hours with an additional one hour oftemperature settling time. For this testing, both selected parts were“C” cores fabricated from METGLAS® 2605SA1 with a standard 1 mil gage,one with an approximate 0.75 lb. weight and the other with anapproximate 2.5 lb. weight. The larger core is roughly 1.8 to 2 timeslarger in window dimensions, cross sectional area, path length than thesmaller core with proportional increases in window area and mass. Thestrip widths of both cores were each about 1.25 inches. The tabular dataand graphs for the larger core tracked the results for the smaller core.Therefore, only the data for the smaller core is presented for the sakeof succinctness. As set forth herein and in the figures, the term“coated” refers to a core which has been treated with the combination ofheat and steam to form iron oxide insulative material between the layersof the laminate. The term “uncoated” refers to cores which have not beentreated with steam, and which do not have sufficient iron oxideinsulation between laminate layers.

[0080] In these tests, data was accumulated using the afore-described 4hour treatment, one hour settling process as a thermal model forannealing, except that a different temperature was substituted for 690°F., i.e., one of 715° F., 730° F., 750° F., 760° F., 770° F. 780° F. or800° F. The standard 690° F. processing was also done in the same testgroup to compare the unusual annealing temperature results with standardprocessing. In order to better observe the effects of the coating at thelisted temperatures, starting at 690° F. and ranging for a total of 8steps to 800° F., testing was done with and without the coating process.Where coating was provided, processing was done using the ferricaluminum silicate transference matrix described above. For the testswhere no coating was applied, the thermal processing time was kept at 5hours to fully duplicate the annealing time conditions of one hour ofstabilization and 4 hours of exposure to steam and heat, or 5 hourstotal annealing time. Testing was done for the three major processingsteps: (1) after annealing; (2) after impregnation with an epoxy resin;and (3) after final processing. Longitudinal magnetic fields wereapplied where appropriate to achieve maximum saturation magnetization.When a longitudinal magnetizing field was used, the term Square (Sq)appears in the tables below. When no field was used, the term Round (Rd)appears. Therefore, for the most part magnetic fields were not usedabove the Curie temperature of roughly 765° F. for these annealingconditions. Following the extensive testing done over 8 differenttemperatures, a very small “C” core was processed in larger numbers at690° F. to 710° F. and 730° F. to 745° F. to confirm some observationsmade with the first group. This core had an approximate weight ofapproximately 0.1 lb. This follow-up testing of the very small coreconfirmed the more important conclusions reached with the smaller grouptested over a larger temperature range.

[0081] The permeability parameter is the slope of the line from the zerodrive, zero flux point on the magnetization curve to the flux level forwhich it is defined. TABLE 4 Magnetization curve core flux (kG) -impregnated 0.75# core - uncoated Drive 690° F. 715° F. 730° F. 750° F.750° F. 760° F. 770° F. 780° F. 800° F. 800° F. 0.1 0.79 0.58 0.30 0.250.25 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.5 4.90 4.52 3.32 2.91 2.66 1.74 1.080.50 0.08 0.08 1.0 6.52 6.31 5.02 4.73 4.36 3.24 2.41 1.29 0.25 0.25 2.08.18 8.22 6.72 6.72 6.35 5.15 4.14 2.66 0.71 0.71 3.0 9.25 9.46 7.807.93 7.64 6.43 5.35 3.74 1.33 1.12 4.0 10.00 10.29 8.47 8.76 8.47 7.356.23 4.61 1.58 1.49 5.0 10.62 10.96 9.09 9.55 9.30 8.09 7.06 5.35 1.991.87 (Oe) Square Square Square Square Round Round Round Round SquareRound

[0082] All measurements shown in Table 4 were made using a MagneticMetals Constant Current Flux Reset Test Set (CCFR), which was adjustedfor the proper core cross sectional area and path length to give acalibrated flux level in kiloGauss (kG) and drive in Oersteds (Oe). Inaddition, the flux densities were adjusted to be consistent with a 15.9kG saturation level, expected for the uncoated and unimpregnatedprocessing results of METGLAS® 2605SA1.

[0083] Table 4 and corresponding FIG. 9 show a generally decreasingmagnetization curve as the annealing temperature increases from 690° F.to 800° F. Further no square loop effects are evident in this data,despite the fact that the 690° F., 715° F. and 730° F. and part of the750° F. data was taken using longitudinally “Square Loop” magnetizedcores. This result is a consequence of the impregnation stress, sincesquareness is strongly evident in the pre-impregnated data, i.e., coreflux ranges from no less than 15 kG to 15.9 kG, from 3 Oe to the maximumdrive of 5 Oe, for the temperatures mentioned. See FIG. 16 which showsthe magnetization curves for the unimpregnated 0.75 lb. uncoated coresover the 690° F. to 800° F. range.

[0084] It is believed that the reason for this effect is that stressreduces permeability. See Bozworth, “Ferromagnetism,” IEEE Press (1983)(Chapter 13, Stress and Magnetostriction). The applicable equation is:μ₀−1=8πI_(s) ²/9λ_(s)σ_(i) where μ₀ is the initial permeability; I_(s)is the magnetic moment per unit volume at saturation, which isproportional to the saturation flux density; λ_(s) is the saturationmagnetostriction; and cyi, is the internal stress in a single domain.Since the saturation magnetostriction for 2605SA1 is quite large, i.e.,27 ppm, the effect of even small impregnation stresses can be quitelarge. TABLE 5 Perm and power loss - 2 kG flux density - impregnated0.75# core - uncoated Factor 690° F. 715° F. 730° F. 750° F. 750° F.760° F. 770° F. 780° F. 800° F. 800° F. Watts/# 16.73 10.38 26.99 16.4610.83 17.50 16.42 17.51 20.56 26.36 Perm 9,176 8,198 6,096 5,499 5,1153,413 2,362 1,315 398 374

[0085] The permeability (perm) in Table 5 was calculated at the 2 kGflux level from the data in Table 4. The core loss was measured at 20kHz and 2 kG, using a test set fully described below in the Examplessection and FIG. 6. The test condition for power measurement at 2 kG forthis core is: 43.9 volts using a 10 turn solenoid coil. Data for thistest is also plotted in FIG. 10.

[0086] The power loss is typically higher than for unimpregnated cores.FIG. 17 is the equivalent of FIG. 10 for the unimpregnated 0.75# coresover the 690° F. to 800° F. range. Note the increase in powerdissipation for the impregnated but uncut cores. TABLE 6 Magnetizationcurve core flux (kG) - impregnated 0.75# core - coated Drive 690° F.715° F. 730° F. 750° F. 760° F. 760° F. 760° F. 770° F. 800° F. 800° F.0.1 0.54 0.58 .37 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.5 4.15 4.15 3.401.70 1.33 1.66 1.04 0.83 0.37 0.08 1.0 5.81 5.93 5.10 3.07 2.49 3.072.24 1.87 1.04 0.29 2.0 7.64 7.80 6.97 4.77 4.23 4.86 3.86 3.49 2.280.71 3.0 8.76 8.96 8.13 5.93 5.48 6.06 5.06 4.69 3.28 1.12 4.0 9.55 9.798.96 6.81 6.39 6.97 5.89 5.56 4.07 1.49 5.0 10.21 10.42 9.67 7.51 7.397.72 6.64 6.35 4.81 1.91 (Oe) Square Square Square Square Square SquareRound Round Round Round

[0087] The comments for Table 4 apply equally to Table 6. The coating ofthe present invention seems to have a slightly greater effect onrounding or flattening, depending on the temperature, than the uncoatedcores. However the differences are too small to be noticed in view ofthe stresses experienced by the impregnated cores. The equivalent datafor the unimpregnated cores also shows no significant differencesbetween coated and uncoated cores. It is only when permeability andpower loss are considered as a crystallization effect that differencesemerge. The unimpregnated coated cores in FIG. 18 are very “square” fortemperatures below 750° F., and “flat” at 760° F. and beyond. Theimpregnation effect for coated cores significantly reduces thepermeability for each annealing temperature except 800° F. Qualitativelythe effect is the same as observed for the uncoated cores, except thatthe 715° F. annealing temperature results in a higher saturation flux(higher than for the 690° F. annealing temperature) comparing theunimpregnated coated cores to the uncoated ones. The differences betweenthe 690° F. and 715° F. for unimpregnated cores is not very large. TABLE7 Perm and power loss - 2 kG flux density - impregnated 0.75# core -coated Factor 690° F. 715° F. 730° F. 750° F. 760° F. 760° F. 760° F.770° F. 780° F. 800° F. Watts/# 8.66 7.19 7.99 11.11 9.56 9.97 11.2810.5 11.84 22.87 Perm 7,639 7,721 6,354 3,284 2,534 3,223 2,233 1,8491,128 382

[0088] The comments for Table 5 apply equally to Table 7. However, thecomparison of Table 7 (coating of the invention) with Table 3 (uncoated)shows a clear difference, which is more evident from their equivalentfigures, i.e., FIG. 12 and FIG. 10. These figures show that power lossis reduced for coated cores, and that there is significantly lessscatter in the plot of permeability versus power loss at 2 kG for coatedcores compared to uncoated cores. Because permeability and power lossshould be inversely related in the crystallization zone, as observed forthe coated cores, the additional power loss and scatter for the uncoatedcores are due to something else.

[0089] These differences are not apparent for coated and uncoated coresbefore impregnation, as seen by comparing FIG. 17 (uncoated) with FIG.19 (coated). FIG. 17 and FIG. 19 show approximately equal core loss andscatter. It is only when impregnation stresses are present in additionto the crystallization component that differences emerge.

[0090] The uncoated permeability versus power loss should show a smoothdownward trend if most of the power loss is because of increasedcrystallization as the temperature increases. However since there ismuch more scatter in the uncoated data than can be explained from simplecrystallization effects alone, the additional power loss must be due tolarger impregnation stresses compared to the coated cores.

[0091] This conclusion is both consistent with the lack of differencesbetween unimpregnated cores, and the observation that the differencesbecome smaller for impregnated cores as the annealing temperatureincreases. The crystallization component of stress gets larger withincreased annealing temperatures while the impregnation stress staysconstant regardless of annealing temperature. Therefore the balanceshifts slowly to a higher crystallization contribution to power loss athigher annealing temperatures for impregnated cores. Note that there isno substantial improvement at 800° F. for coated and impregnated cores.TABLE 8 Perm and annealing temperature (° F.) - imprenated 0.75# core -uncoated Temp (° F.) 0.1 Oe 0.5 Oe 1.0 Oe 2.0 Oe 3.0 Oe 4.0 Oe 5.0 OeAverage 690 7,885 9,794 6,516 4,088 3.085 2,500 2,125 5,142 715 5,8109,047 6,308 4,109 3,154 2,573 2,191 4,742 730 2,490 6,640 5,022 3,3622,601 2,117 1,818 3,435 730 2,490 5,561 4,544 3,268 2,594 2,153 1,8843,213 760 1,245 3,486 3,237 2,573 2,144 1,836 1,619 3,306 770   8302,158 2,407 2,075 1,785 1,556 1,411 1,746 780   415   996 1,287 1,3281,245 1,152 1,071 1,070 800   415   166   249   353   408   384   386  337

[0092] The permeabilities in Table 8 were calculated from the data inTable 4 for each combination of temperature and drive level as the ratioof the flux density measured to the given drive level. Note the notch inFIG. 13 at 730° F. For METGLAS® 2605SA1, 730° F. is the estimatedtheoretical temperature of crystallization onset for 5 hours ofannealing. FIG. 13 definitely shows a transition from a relativelystable permeability range from 0.1 Oe to 5.0 Oe below 730° F., to anoticeably steep decline, starting somewhere around 750° F. or slightlyhigher. The average is approximately linear beyond 750° F. in thelog-perm versus temperature plot. The permeability also changesrelatively slowly over the 0.1 Oe to 5.0 Oe range beyond 750° F. exceptfor some anomalies at the very low 0.1 Oe level. The magnetization curveis changing from a “round” to a “flat” loop in the 730° F. to 750° F.range. A careful review of Table 4 and FIG. 9 shows the same effects.TABLE 9 Perm and annealing temperature ° F. - impregnated 0.75# core -coated Temp (° F.) 0.1 Oe 0.5 Oe 1.0 Oe 2.0 Oe 3.0 Oe 4.0 Oe 5.0 OeAverage 690 5,395 8,300 5,810 3,818 2,919 2,386 2,042 4,381 715 5,8108,300 5,935 3,901 2,988 2,449 2,083 4,494 730 3,735 6,806 5,106 3,4862,711 2,241 1,934 3,717 750 1,245 3,403 3,071 2,386 1,978 1,702 1,5022,184 760 1,107 2,684 2,601 2,158 1,844 1,605 1,450 1,921 770   8301,660 1,878 1,743 1,563 1,390 1,270 1,475 780   414   747 1,038 1,1411,093 1,017   963   916 800   415   166   291   353   374   374   382  336

[0093] The permeabilities in Table 9 were calculated from the data inTable 6 for each combination of temperature and drive level as the ratioof the flux density measured to the given drive level. The notch at 730°F., noted for Table 8, has been replaced by a definite trend downward inTable 9. See FIG. 14. The coating of the present invention is helpingthe transition to crystallization at slightly lower temperatures. TheArrhenius nature of the log-perm versus temperature plot in FIG. 14 ismore pronounced than for FIG. 13 and starts sooner, i.e., 740° F. Allother observations, made for Table 8, apply to Table 9.

[0094] The larger 2.5# core showed that same trends as the smaller 0.75#core, having somewhat different saturation inductance and permeabilityscaling effects.

[0095] Table 10 compiles power loss data taken at 20 kHz and 2 kG at the8 distinct temperatures used for data collection points, starting at690° F. and finishing with 800° F. The 0.75 lb. (#) core was used forthis data. The 2.5 lb. core showed similar results. TABLE 10 Comparisonof power loss (watts/lb) of coated and uncoated cores UnimpregnatedImpregnated (W/lb) (W/lb) Finished (W/lb) % Improve- Temp (° F.) CoatedUncoated Coated Uncoated Coated Uncoated finished cores 690 Square 20.3618.44 8.66 16.73 10.03 18.27 45% 715 Square 19.0 23.02 7.19 10.38 8.2512.03 31% 730 Square 7.39 3.1 7.99 26.99 8.24 no data insuff. Data 750Square 3.19 6.0 11.11 16.46 12.68 17.31 12% 750 Round 4.97 10.93 11.49760 Square 2.9 5.33 9.56 17.5 11.76 16.64 760 Square 3.32 9.97 10.49 33%760 Round 3.48 11.28 11.3 770 Round 4.63 4.54 10.5 16.42 10.7 16.18 34%780 Round 7.52 5.74 11.84 17.51 11.36 18.19 38% 800 Square 21.24 20.5613.63 16% 800 Round 23.21 21.24 22.87 26.36 13.29 17.87

[0096] The annealing conditions identified as “square” mean that a 75amp DC current was passed through the window of the core, therebycreating a substantially longitudinal magnetic field for “square”magnetization curve annealing. The annealing conditions identified as“round” mean that no current was passed through the window of the corewith no magnetic field present for annealing. The “no data” case for thefinished 730° F. annealing condition resulted from a lost core. Theindicated percent improvement for each annealing temperature range is anaverage of both the round and square loop condition, if both arepresent. There was an overall 30% improvement, considering the 690° F.to 800° F. range as a whole.

[0097] The apparent permeability of a core is strongly affected by thedimensions of the gap (if there is a gap) as follows:1/μ_(eff)=1/μ_(i)+g/l_(p) where μ_(eff)=effective or measuredpermeability of core; μ_(i)=core material's intrinsic permeability undertest conditions, i.e., flux level and frequency; g=total gaps,l_(p)=mean path length going in the direction of flux inside the core.Note that μ_(eff)=μ_(i) when the gap is zero. Permeability isdimensionless in the cgs system discussed herein. This equation reducesto: μ_(eff)=μ_(i)/(1+g/l_(p)×μ_(i)) where g and l_(p) have the samedimensions. As an approximation: μ_(eff)≈l_(p)/g when g/l_(p)×μ_(i)<<1.

[0098] Given this gap uncertainty, the CCFR instrument set used tomeasure permeability for uncut cores as reported above is inadequate forcut cores. Also the CCFR is not calibrated for a 20 kHz frequency,corresponding to the power loss test point of 2 kG and 20 kHz. Toovercome these problems, a General Radio 1630-AV inductance measuringassembly was used to measure inductance for small coated “C” cores withcarefully controlled gap dimensions. However there is an excitationdifference between the CCFR and inductance bridge. The CCFR uses a sinewave for current, and the inductance bridge a sine wave for voltage,i.e., flux. This excitation difference between the two test sets willaffect permeability comparisons. The bridge measures permeability to besomewhat larger than does the CCFR. However these differences are notbelieved to be large enough to affect the general nature of theconclusions resulting from these tests.

[0099] The following equation was used to calculate μ_(i) given theinductance and known gaps: μ_(i)=l_(p)/(4×π×10⁻⁹×N²×A_(eff)/L−g) whereN=number of electrical turns; A_(eff)=effective area of core in squarecentimeters; L=inductance of core in henries; and l_(p) and g(previously defined) are in centimeters. As mentioned earlier, μ_(i) hasno unit dimensions in the cgs system used to report the data.

[0100] The equation was used to calculate μ_(i), for various gaps,including the mated surface gap. All permeability calculations were doneat 2 kG and 20 kHz, using a 50 turn electrical coil symmetrically placedover both gaps to minimize fringing effects. The results are thereforecomparable to core loss measurements done under the same conditions. Theresultant calculated values of permeability were fitted to a straightline using regression techniques to estimate the material permeabilityas the “y” intercept, corresponding to zero gap. The accompanying powerloss data was measured as described above. The following data shows theresult for the 0.1 lb. “C” cores.

[0101] Table 11 compares the permeability and power loss of completed0.1 lb. “C” cores, which were annealed and coated at 690° F. for fourhours at the standard process condition for “square loop” requirements.The table compares the standard “square loop” with “round loop”. Thepermeability estimates in Table 11 were obtained using a regressiontechnique after cutting, applied to calculated permeability versusmeasured gap as described earlier. Permeability calculations were donefor various gaps and fitted to a linear regression line, using standardformulas. The resultant regression line was extrapolated to zero gap toprovide the permeability estimate for round and square loops (aftercutting) shown in Table 11. Note that the permeability at the cut stageapplies to the average of 5 cores for each group to improve theestimated accuracy.

[0102] The gap measurements in Table 12 are rounded to 3 places. Thislevel of accuracy is necessary so that the closeness of fit, calculatedby the regression analysis, is reproducible. The gaps were actuallychecked to 0.0001″ using an optical comparator. The resultant gap datawas adjusted by the regression technique by no greater than thisaccuracy limit. The adjustment was done to achieve the best possiblefit. FIG. 20 shows the resultant regression line and data correspondingto Table 12. TABLE 11 Comparison of permeability and core loss beforeand after cutting - 0.1# core Permeability* Core loss (watts/#)*Condition Before cutting After cutting Before cutting After cuttingSquare loop 5,142 ± 847 4,782 8.55 ± 1.20 8.91 ± 4.03 Round loop 4,914 ±1,193 4,298 8.82 ± 0.81 9.13 ± 1.59 # are NAMLITE ® processed understandard 690° F. annealing conditions.

[0103] TABLE 12 Apparent material permeability after cutting - 0.1# coreAdjusted gap Adjusted gap Round Square Measured gap (mils) (mils)* (cm)*loop loop Projected to no gap 0 0  4,298  4,782 0.65 (mating gap) 0.650.00165  5,490  8,692 2.4 (amber shim) 2.393 0.00608 10,823 18,339 3.2(purple shim) 3.173 0.00806 13,224 21,808 3.8 (red shim) 3.702 0.0094012,322 26,757

[0104]FIG. 20 reproduces Table 12 in graphical form with the regressionoverlay also shown. The calculated material permeability does not stayconstant as the gap changes for two reasons. First, the calculation formaterial permeability is extremely sensitive to the gap dimension, asdiscussed earlier. Because it was impossible to measure the gaps to therequired precision, the regression dither technique was used to adjustaway as much of the gap uncertainty as possible. Second, the fringe fluxtends to raise the inductance as the gap gets larger in proportion tothe increase. This is a well documented effect, which inductor designersoften need to take into consideration.

[0105] However the simple equation used to calculate the permeability inTable 12 does not take the complicated fringe flux effects into account.Since the effect of fringe flux is to increase inductance, it has theeffect of also increasing the calculated material permeability as thegaps get larger. This is the primary reason why a regression analysis isneeded, because it would otherwise not be possible to know the slope ofthe fringing error effect. The regression technique permits an estimateof the material permeability via a projection of the decreasingmagnitude of the effect to zero gap, where it disappears.

[0106] Repeated Processing to Improve Performance

[0107] The improvement provided by the present inventive coating isprimarily due to power loss reduction, which happens progressively. Nocoating results in no improvement. A thin coating results in marginallybetter power loss improvement over the “no coating” state, due to slighteddy current reduction. As the coating growth progresses, at first theadditional improvement happens quickly due to the rapid increase inthickness of the coating. At this stage eddy currents diminish rapidlyas the coating resistance increases with thickness. However, at somepoint the coating thickness increase slows down. When this happens theperformance improvement also slows down, because the thickness is notincreasing and eddy currents reach an equilibrium level. This is thenormal “S” curve for growth processes which rely on the substrate. Inthis case the metal substrate provides iron to the coating as insulativeiron oxides.

[0108] The crystallization effect is also time dependent, because of the“onset effect.” Therefore if annealing is done long enough in thecoating processing range, crystallization starts. Once crystallizationstarts, it is only a matter of time before resulting performance isadversely affected, i.e., permeability decreases, and coercive force andpower loss increases.

[0109] Since coating growth and crystallization are both driven bytemperature, when the temperature reduces to a certain level, probablybelow 500° F. to 600° F. or so, both processes slow down or stop. This“freezes” a given level of improvement into the coated product,permitting performance measurement for the frozen processing state. Thisassumes that crystallization has not started.

[0110] Therefore benefit first increases, then decreases with increasedtime and temperature, according to a complex relationship between thesecompeting effects. For example, the coating may be appliedprogressively, by exposure to steam and heat for a first period of time,followed by cooling, and one or more subsequent steam/heat treatments.Measurements of permeability and power loss may be made betweensuccessive coating steps. At first there will be improvement, thendegradation as the competing forces of eddy current reduction andcrystallization work against each other. There is clearly a determinablesafe range of time and temperature for given permeability and power lossrequirements. Because the primary limiting factor is crystallizationonset, the amount of processing time at any given temperature can beestimated from graphs in Wohlfarth, cited above. For example at 690° F.to 715° F., using graphs in chapter 6 of Wohlfarth, it can be estimatedthat approximately 10 to 15 hours of annealing are available beforecrystallization onset begins for METGLAS® 2605SA1. This allows 1 to 2repeats of the normal processing condition of 5 hours to “creep up” onpower loss reduction for square loop processing.

[0111] Consequently, if because of material variations, a first coatingtreatment does not produce a core having the desired properties, one ormore additional processing times may sometimes be used to improveperformance of the coated cores to the desired level. Of course, asnoted above, each additional process should be within the limits of thematerial so that crystallization effects do no outweigh the benefits ofthe additional processing. The measurement and repeated processing musthappen before impregnation.

[0112] The following table shows how this reduces to practice. The datawas taken on a 40 lb. toroid, built from METGLAS® 2605SA1, designed tobe used in a very high power transformer assembly. The data reportsstack resistance improvements as a result of a first coating at 690° F.for six hours, followed by cooling and resistance measurement, then asecond coating processing at 690° F. for 6 hours, or a total of 12 hoursincluding the original processing time. Increasing stack resistance isgenerally related to improved performance for strip cores. TABLE 13Comparison of DC stack resistance for 40 lb. METGLAS ® 2605SA1 toroids1^(st) - 6 hr coating 2nd - 6 hr coating (12 hours total) Core no.process stack (Ω) process stack (Ω) 24 314  880 +180% 26 267  347 +30%29 295  841 +185% 30 130  546 +320% 31 356  836 +135% 32 1,456   1,295−11% 33 814 1,603 +97% 34 965 2,031 +110% 35 869 1,485 +71% 36 996 2,192+120% 38 769 1,596 +108% 39 715 1,704 +138% 40 915 2,645 +189% 41 5342,095 +292% 42 721 2,218 +208% 43 530  685 +29% 44 1,200   1,490 +24% 451,238   1,413 +14% Avg change +124% net avg. improvement

[0113] The 124% net average improvement is substantial. Only 1 part inthe 18 reprocessed showed a slight degradation, i.e., −11%.

EXAMPLES

[0114] The Examples which follow are illustrative of the ease of theprocess of the present invention, and the superior performanceproperties which result in cores produced by the present inventiveprocess.

[0115] For the following Examples, power dissipation in C cores wasmeasured by connecting a Volt-Amps-Watts (V-A-W) meter (Clark HessDigital, New York, N.Y.) and a 2 MHz function generator (MaxtecInternational Corp, Chicago, Ill., model BK Precision 3011B) to akilowatt amplifier (Model L6, Instruments, Inc., San Diego, Calif.) tocontrol the output, shape and amplitude frequency and to measure thesame. Sine waves with variable amplitude and frequency were then appliedto the C cores through one of two possible multi-turn coils. The coilswere wrapped around the C cores and connected to the output junctions ofthe kilowatt amplifier. Typical measurement conditions applied to thecores were dependent on the desired flux, and representative examplesappear in Table 14. TABLE 14 Electrical setup conditions for “C” corepower measurement Frequency Excitation Required flux Required number of(kHz) voltage (volts) level (kG) turns (T) 0.4 14.6 2.0 50T 0.4 36.6 5.050T 0.4 72.6 10.0 50T 0.4 109 15 50T 1.0 3.6 2.0 5T with step downtransformerr 1.0 9.26 5.0 5T with step down transformerr 10.0 36.6 2.05T 20.0 73 2.0 5T

[0116] These levels were set using the Precision function generator byusing the readout of the function generator, and the voltage readingdisplay setting of the V-A-W meter. The V-A-W meter directly measuresthe core power loss and excitation current, using the power measurementand current measurement settings.

[0117] To measure the power dissipation of pulsed toroids, a pulsegenerator (Hewlett Packard Model 214A), a high power pulse generator(Model 606, Cober Electronics, Stamford, Conn.) and a regulated powersupply (model 814A, Harrison Laboratories, Berkley Heights, N.J.) wereconnected to a vacuum tube pulser to control its output rise time, dutycycle and amplitude for repetitive pulsing conditions. The vacuum tubepulser was connected to a 3 to 6 turn coil of high amperage cable, whichwas wrapped around the toroid being studied. The setup is isolatedbecause of the high voltages being generated. An oscilloscope (PhilipsModel PM3323 500MS/s with 30 kV probe) was used to record the pulseshape, the core excitation profile and the integrated power response inmemory. Typical measurement ranges were 1.5 to 3.0 microseconds for thepulse width, 15 to 20 ampere turns on the DC reset, with the pulseradjusted to achieve 1 to 4 tesla of flux in the core. The pulse testingapparatus is illustrated schematically in FIG. 6.

Example 1 Decreased Power Losses

[0118] Wound cores of amorphous metal alloys such as METGLAS®) 2605SA1having approximately greater than 70% iron were simultaneously annealedand then treated with steam (pH 8) and air at 365° C. (690° F.) for 6hours to form an iron metal oxide insulating material between theadjacent metal ribbon layers of the cores. Two groups of cores wereformed. The first group consisted of cores weighing approximately 5 lb.each and the second group consisted of cores weighing approximately 1lb. each. Power loss data was normalized between the two groups bydividing the power loss by the weight of the core.

[0119] A second set of cores consisting of the two groups was made asabove, but was not subjected to the steam and air treatment as describedabove. Consequently, this set of cores lacked the iron oxide insulatinglayer, and was used as a baseline to compare the power loss performanceof the treated cores. The normalized data is shown below in Table 15.TABLE 15 Comparison of power loss of treated and untreated amorphousiron cores as a function of frequency Power loss (watts/lb) for treatedand untreated iron cores Frequency (kHz) Untreated Treated % Improvement0.4 1.9 1.3 14 1.0 3.9 2.7 17 10.0 13 9.9 30 16.0 27 19 33 20.0 17 9.045

[0120] The data of Table 15 demonstrates that treating wound corescontaining amorphous iron alloy with the method of the present inventiongenerates cores that perform 14% to 45% better than untreated cores athigh frequencies. Namely, power losses in the treated cones aredecreased by from 14% to 45%. Further, the improvement in performanceincreases as the frequency increases, as shown above.

[0121] A similar experiment was performed with cores formed ofnanocrystalline materials, such as 70% Fe, 9% B, 3% Nb, 2% Cu and smallamounts of Mo, Co and S. These cores were annealed at about 538° C.(1000° F.), cooled to room temperature, and then treated to form theiron oxide insulating layer as described above. The observed decrease inpower losses for these cores in comparison to untreated nanocrystallinecores was similar to that observed for the amorphous metal alloy coresof Table 15.

Example 2 Comparison of Cores Treated with Steam and Air with CoresTreated with Magnesium Methylate in Pulse Tests

[0122] Magnetic cores were formed from about 1 mil thick amorphous ironribbon, such as METGLAS® 2605SA1, as toroidal pulse cores with 19.7 cm(7.75″) outside diameter, 10.8 cm (4.25 ″) inside diameter, and a 51.1cm (2″) width. The cores were then either coated with magnesiummethylate prior to winding, or treated with steam/air after winding toform an iron oxide insulating layer, or both, as described below inTable 16.

[0123] The cores were tested by applying about 8.6 kV using very lowfrequency duty cycle, 5 turn primary (prim), 10 pps and the pulse energycalculated from the 3 μsec pulse width with a 2.85 T flux swing. Thepulse data measurements included core power (the amount of powerdissipated by the core), starting current, and saturation current. Pulseenergy was then calculated from the area under the pulse curvemultiplied by the voltage to give the joules of power. In all of themeasurements, the lower the number, the better the core. Further, it isfavorable for the starting current be as close to the saturation currentas possible. Test results are shown in Table 16. TABLE 16 Pulse coredata for cores treated with magnesium methylate and steam/air StartingSaturation Pulse Core power current current energy Test Process (kW)(amperes) (amperes) (joules) 1 Oil impregnation, 201 20 38 0.75methylate, steam/air 2 Methylate, steam/air 204 20 40 0.77 3 Light resin287 30 50 1.0 impregnation, steam/air 4 Heavy resin 331 30 60 1.2impregnation, steam/air 5 Oil impregnation, 196 22 32 0.7 steam/air 6Magnesium methylate 200 20 40 0.8

[0124] All of the cores shown in Table 16 were amorphous metal alloyscontaining iron as the dominant metal. For the core of Test 1, theamorphous metal ribbon was coated with a very thin coat of magnesiummethylate, the ribbon was formed into a laminate core, and steam and airwere applied by first annealing the cores at about 366° C. (690° F.) fortwo hours then treating with steam (approximately pH 8) and air at 304°C. to 316° C. (580° F. to 600° F.) for approximately 6 hours, to alsoform an iron oxide insulating layer. The core was then impregnated withoil. Cores vibrate during the pulse tests, and the oil was added to helpprotect the core during the test. For the core of Test 2, the ribbon wascoated with a very thin film of magnesium methylate, coiled into alaminate core, and the core was treated with steam/air as described inExample 1. The core of Test 3 was formed by coiling an amorphous metalribbon into a laminate core and treating the core with steam and air asin Example 1. The treated core was then impregnated with a light resin.The core of Test 4 was formed in the same manner as the core of Test 3and was then impregnated with a heavy resin. The core of Test 5 wasformed by coiling an amorphous metal ribbon into a laminate core andthen treating the core with steam and air as in Example 1. The core wasthen impregnated with oil, similar to the core of Test 1. The core ofTest 6 was formed by coating an amorphous metal ribbon with a very thinlayer of magnesium methylate and coiling the ribbon into a laminatecore.

[0125] As shown above, the cores which were treated with steam and airto form iron oxide insulating layers generally performed as well orbetter in the pulse tests as the cores which were formed from ribboncoated with magnesium methylate. However, the insulating layers producedwith the steam/air were made much faster and with far less expense thancoating with thin layers of magnesium methylate.

[0126] Further, pulse cores coated only with magnesium methylate andthen impregnated with resin broke apart during testing, and are notshown in Table 16 for that reason. Consequently, as the datademonstrates, there is more flexibility in the treatments that can bedone with the pulse cores with insulating layers formed of native metaloxides such as iron oxide than with the pulse cores formed withmagnesium methylate coatings. Coating the cores with resin, as in Tests3 and 4, simulates the binding agent processing that would be done priorto cutting the core to form a “C” core, for example. Even though thecore power losses of the resin-impregnated cores prepared from coreswhich were previously treated with steam/air were 40% to 50% higher thanthe comparable cores which were not impregnated with resin, the benefitsof impregnation may outweigh the increase in power dissipation in someapplications where the increased rigidity is important.

Example 3 Performance Vs. Processing Temperature

[0127] The following Table 17 shows the performance effects ofprocessing amorphous metal cores having iron as the dominant metal underdifferent temperature conditions. The cores used were all approximatelyfive pounds in weight, with an approximate 5.1 cm (2″) wide strip width.All cores were treated with steam in the presence of air for 4 hours andannealed for 2 hours, except for the core simultaneously annealed andprocessed. The latter was annealed and steam treated simultaneously for4 hours. An identical set of cores were created and annealed, but werenot exposed to steam/air to form the iron oxide insulating coat. Thepower losses of each set of cores were measured, and are compared below.TABLE 17 Relative performance of iron oxides coated on “C” corescompared to same uncoated configurations Frequency (kHz) Processingconditions 0.4 1.0 10.0 20.0 500° F. processing & 690° F. annealing 9.0%43.9% 21.1% 19.8% 550° F. processing & 690° F. annealing −19.5% 12.9%−71.5% −77.0% 590° F. processing & 690° F. annealing −5.7% 22.2% −53.1%−57.3% 625° F. processing & 690° F. annealing −1.0% 38.1% 18.2% 17.8%650° F. processing & 690° F. annealing −4.3% 31.2% −12.7% −18.5% 690° F.simultaneous processing & 22.8% 52.2% 50.2% 52.7% annealing

[0128] Table 17 reflects data taken from cores processed using pHenhanced steam, approximately pH 8 to 10, from a steam generator usingfeedwater from a reverse osmosis system. For comparison purposes. FIG. 5(Table 15) shows the same core configuration processed from unpurifiedtap water as the feedwater having a pH of about 8.

Example 4

[0129] Shown below in Table 18 are comparisons of uncut toroidal coresof various weights. The cores were formed from amorphous metal alloyssuch as METGLAS® 2605SA1. Iron is the dominant elemental metal. Thecores were annealed at about 366° C. (690° F.) for 2 hours, and thentreated with steam/air at about 304° C. to 316° C. (580° F. to 600° F.)for 2 to 6 hours. As can be seen from Table 18, cores having theinsulative coatings of the present invention exhibited significantlydecreased power losses for the higher 20 kHz frequency. TABLE 18Comparison of power losses uncut core configurations with/withoutsteam/air Part Low frequency - 400 Hz High Frequency - 20 kHz WeightUntreated Treated Untreated Treated 400 Hz 20 kHz (lbs) (watts/#)(watts/#) (watts/#) (watts/#) Impendance Impedance 0.83 2.2 2.9 −31%0.92 1.8 2.2 13 7.2 −19% 46% 1.24 1.4 2.0 −41% 2.68 29 5.8 80% 5.95 1.92.2 58 18 −21% 69% 7.24 1.4 2.0 13 10 −44% 23%

Example 5

[0130] METGLAS® 2605SA1 cores were annealed for two hours at 690° F.,and then steam/air treated at about 304° C. to 316° C. (580° F. to 600°F.) for 2, 4 or 6 hours. As shown below in Table 19, observed powerlosses generally decrease as the steam/air treatment time increases from2 hours to 6 hours. TABLE 19 Power dissipation (watts/#) at twofrequencies versus processing time # Processing Time (min) Dissipation -400 Hz Dissipation - 20 kHz 1 120 1.9 18 2 120 1.6 17 3 120 1.5 16 4 1201.5 12 5 120 2.1 22 6 120 1.9 19 7 120 3.0 12 8 120 2.2 20 9 240 1.3 1510  240 1.5 13 11  240 1.6 17 12  360 10 13  360 17

[0131] Although the present invention and its advantages have beendescribed in detail by referring to specific embodiments, it should beunderstood that various changes, substitutions and alterations can bemade to such embodiments, as is know to those of skill in the art,without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention which isdefined by the following claims.

1. A method of providing dielectric isolation between adjacent metallayers of a laminated magnetic assembly, comprising: providing alaminated magnetic assembly having a plurality of layers, wherein thelayers are formed in part of iron; and oxidizing the layers to producean insulative coating comprising iron oxide between the layers;measuring the magnetic or electric properties of the laminated magneticassembly to derive a first value indicating performance; and furtheroxidizing the magnetic assembly to increase the amount of iron oxidespresent, the resulting magnetic assembly exhibiting power losses reducedby at least 15% in comparison to a substantially identically dimensionedassembly without the insulative coating at an operating frequency of 10kHz to 20 kHz.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layerscomprise an amorphous metal alloys
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein theoxidizing step comprises exposing the plurality of layers to steam inthe presence of oxygen at a temperature of at least 500° F.
 4. Themethod of claim 3, wherein the layers are exposed to steam in thepresence of oxygen at a temperature of from about 500° F. to 800° F. 5.The method of any of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers comprise ananocrystalling material.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein thelaminated magnetic assembly is a wound core.
 7. The method of claim 1,further comprising measuring the magnetic or electric properties of themagnetic assembly after the further oxidizing step to derive a secondvalue indicating magnetic or electric performance.
 8. The method ofclaim 7, wherein second value indicates a magnetic or electricperformance that is at least 25% better than the performance indicatedby the first value.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein second valueindicates a magnetic or electric performance that is at least 30% betterthan the performance indicated by the first value.
 10. The method ofclaim 9, wherein second value indicates a magnetic or electricperformance that is at least 35% better than the performance indicatedby the first value.